Quantcast

E-bike crackdown in NYC

KenW449

Thanos did nothing wrong
Jun 13, 2017
2,468
268
Floating down the whiskey river...
If you can't ride a moped on the streets or sidewalks then why should you be allowed to ride an e-bike?
Because Mopeds can be modified to go faster, be more powerful. They are usually bigger and heavier. Under 50cc, You usually don't need a license to operate, though I'm assessing its different in NYC. They typically go about 30mph but larger can go 55mph.
E-bikes are generally the same size as a normal bicycle and you can pedal them faster than the motor will carry you, which is about 20mph.
Electric bikes do not need a special registration, license, or insurance to operate. Why shouldn't you be able to ride them?
 

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,359
907
East Bay, Cali
It's a motorized bicycle. No mater how you try to get around it, we're still talking about bicycles with electric motors on them.

You can ride them, just not on the street, which is for licensed motorized vehicles and unlicensed human powered vehicles, or on the sidewalk, which is for pedestrians, or on the pedestrian/bike paths, which are for human powered vehicles and human powered humans.

PS. Do you really think it's impossible to modify an e-bike to go faster?
 

velocipedist

Monkey
Jul 11, 2006
297
294
Cloudland Georgia
FTFY
velocipedist said:
Because ebikes can be modified to go faster, be more powerful (class 2/3) . They are usually bigger and heavier. Currently, You don't need a license to operate, though laws tend towards snail rather than hare as with technology. They typically go about 30mph (class 2) but larger can go 55mph(class 3).
Class 1 E-bikes are generally the same size as a normal bicycle and you can pedal them faster than the motor will carry you, which is about 20mph.
Electric motorcycles need registration, license, and insurance to operate. Why should you be able to ride them?
 

KenW449

Thanos did nothing wrong
Jun 13, 2017
2,468
268
Floating down the whiskey river...
just not throttle activated bikes.
I could see that.

Not allowed until they turn them into revenue
Basically. The Government just wants another way to take our money.

PS. Do you really think it's impossible to modify an e-bike to go faster?
At what point did i say that?

https://optibike.com/electric-bikes-vs-mopeds/
So long as i follows the limitations, i don't see a problem. If its modified to go faster, i can see it being illegal and fining them but not confiscating them. At that point, they may as well just start fining people with modified cars and confiscating them because there MAY be a chance they have an illegal mod.

Gas bike conversions i can see being illegal. They are loud and obnoxious. If someone is being stupid, fine them.
But to fine someone and/or confiscate their bike just because its electric is over the line.
 

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,359
907
East Bay, Cali
At what point did i say that?
One of the reasons you gave as to why ebikes were ok but not mopeds was

Because Mopeds can be modified to go faster, be more powerful
The logical conclusion of that statement is that ebikes are ok because they can not be modified to be faster and more powerful. If that's not what you intended to say then explain what you meant.

https://optibike.com/electric-bikes-vs-mopeds/
So long as i follows the limitations, i don't see a problem. If its modified to go faster, i can see it being illegal and fining them but not confiscating them. At that point, they may as well just start fining people with modified cars and confiscating them because there MAY be a chance they have an illegal mod.

Gas bike conversions i can see being illegal. They are loud and obnoxious. If someone is being stupid, fine them.
But to fine someone and/or confiscate their bike just because its electric is over the line.
It's not a bicycle it's a motorized vehicle. It has an engine. Why should the regulations for a motorized vehicle be the same as for bicycles?

Want to classify them as scooters and have licenses and all that mess? Fine. Then they would be allowed on the road and not on bike/pedestrian paths. I'm ok with that. Just stop pretending these are another type of bicycle. They are not.
 

KenW449

Thanos did nothing wrong
Jun 13, 2017
2,468
268
Floating down the whiskey river...
It's not a bicycle it's a motorized vehicle
Incorrect. The federal Consumer Product Safety Act defines a "low speed electric bicycle" as a two or three wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals, a top speed when powered solely by the motor under 20 mph (32 km/h) and an electric motor that produces less than 750 W (1.01 hp). E-bikes exceeding these power and speed limits are regulated by the federal DOT and NHTSA as motor vehicles, and must meet additional safety requirements.

I understand each state has the authority to call it whatever they want and create their own laws, some requires licenses while others don't. Most states laws either do not define it or call it bicycle. But New York is the only state that outlaws them and they are just money hungry. I completely understand outlawing throttle assisted E-bikes as they would be more of an electric scooter you can pedal more than it would be a bike. But even then, most states don't require a license for motor vehicles under 49cc. But E-bikes that are pedal only are electric assisted.
 

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,359
907
East Bay, Cali
"low speed electric bicycle"

E-bikes that are pedal only are electric assisted.
Semantics. It's a bike with a motor on it. I don't think they belong on bike trails (paved or dirt) any more than a moped. I think as we see more of these motorized bikes the laws surrounding them will likely change. More and more places will impose additional restrictions.
 

KenW449

Thanos did nothing wrong
Jun 13, 2017
2,468
268
Floating down the whiskey river...
I think as we see more of these motorized bikes the laws surrounding them will likely change
More than likely. But i think it will be moar because of asshatery of the cyclist than the bike itself. Probably due to the same mantality of an asshat crotch rochet rider. "Because im faster, i deserve to speed in between the rest of traffic because i dont wanna wait, hmff!)
Im going to bed, goodnight!:lazy2:
 

kickstand

Turbo Monkey
Sep 18, 2009
3,445
391
Fenton, MI
More than likely. But i think it will be moar because of asshatery of the cyclist than the bike itself. Probably due to the same mantality of an asshat crotch rochet rider. "Because im faster, i deserve to speed in between the rest of traffic because i dont wanna wait, hmff!)
Im going to bed, goodnight!:lazy2:
Except, in some states, lane splitting on a motorcycle is legal (under certain circumstances)
 

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,359
907
East Bay, Cali
Except, in California, lane splitting on a motorcycle is illegal
False. CA does not have regulations regarding lane splitting.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-california-to-establish-lane-splitting-1470328822-htmlstory.html

California is expected to become the first state in the nation to formalize the practice of lane splitting after state Assembly members on Thursday passed a bill authorizing the California Highway Patrol to establish guidelines for motorcyclists on how to do it safely.

The bill, sponsored by Assembly member Bill Quirk (D-Hayward), passed Thursday with a 69-0 vote. It now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature. On the floor, Quirk said the proposed law had many positives, including reducing traffic congestion and promoting safety.
Technically, it has not been legal or illegal, falling in a gray area where it was treated as acceptable by law enforcement agencies. But when the CHP published safe strategies on the practice in 2015, a citizen complained that the agency should not be allowed to create public policy.
 

KenW449

Thanos did nothing wrong
Jun 13, 2017
2,468
268
Floating down the whiskey river...
False. CA does not have regulations regarding lane splitting.
i did not say it was legal there, its just not illegal as you sited, "Technically, it has not been legal or illegal, falling in a gray area where it was treated as acceptable by law enforcement agencies." Elsewhere, it is illegal. Other states have tried to legalize it but without success.
 

rockofullr

confused
Jun 11, 2009
7,359
907
East Bay, Cali
i did not say it was legal there, its just not illegal as you sited, "Technically, it has not been legal or illegal, falling in a gray area where it was treated as acceptable by law enforcement agencies." Elsewhere, it is illegal. Other states have tried to legalize it but without success.
You clearly said it was illegal

Except, in California, lane splitting on a motorcycle is illegal

FIFY
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,136
1,534
AK
Except, in some states, lane splitting on a motorcycle is legal (under certain circumstances)
Except what you quoted was reckless driving and speeding. If they were "in between lanes" and it's not illegal to do that wherever he was talking about, I'm certain it's still not legal to drive recklessly and speed there.
 

kickstand

Turbo Monkey
Sep 18, 2009
3,445
391
Fenton, MI
Except what you quoted was reckless driving and speeding. If they were "in between lanes" and it's not illegal to do that wherever he was talking about, I'm certain it's still not legal to drive recklessly and speed there.
Clearly that is how you interpreted what he read. He said nothing about how fast traffic was or wasn't going and never used the word reckless.
 

Jm_

Turbo Monkey
Jan 14, 2002
9,136
1,534
AK
Clearly that is how you interpreted what he read. He said nothing about how fast traffic was or wasn't going and never used the word reckless.
More than likely. But i think it will be moar because of asshatery of the cyclist than the bike itself. Probably due to the same mantality of an asshat crotch rochet rider. "Because im faster, i deserve to speed in between the rest of traffic because i dont wanna wait, hmff!)
 

Toshi

Harbinger of Doom
Oct 23, 2001
26,180
1,761
I can totally see this in just a few short year being viewed the same as those ski resorts that clung miserably to their ban on snowboards.
I would totally ski Aspen and Alta exclusively if they were closer to me. :D